SWISS MINISTER WANTS TO LEGALISE GENOCIDE DENIERS
European Jewish Press, Belgium
Oct 23 2006
BERN (EJP)— Switzerland’s justice minister has called on the Swiss
government to reverse a law which makes historical revisionism illegal.
Minister Christoph Blocher is on a campaign to change the law,
according to the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (NZZ) newspaper – even if it
will impinge upon the sensitivities of minority groups, including
the country’s Jewish communities.
Blocher claims that freedom of expression is more important than
protecting the sensibilities of minority groups, NZZ wrote.
Blocher just returned from a trip to Turkey where a public discussion
of the Armenian genocide is de facto punishable by a court of law.
Upon his return home, Blocher said that he believes that Swiss laws
needs to be a beacon for other nations.
As far as the minister is concerned, a ban on free speech in Turkey
has made an effective public discussion of the Armenian genocide and
Kurdish issues there impossible. In effect, he claims that widening
the possibilities for freedom of speech in Switzerland might entice
other countries to do the same.
International relations
The minister, however, is also disgruntled because he claims that
such a law is an impediment on Switzerland’s relationship to other
countries.
Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code punishes genocide-denial.
Currently, anybody is punishable in Switzerland if they “deny,
belittle, or relativise genocide or crimes against humanity,”
NZZ wrote.
Because of this law, Swiss lawmakers who travel abroad are required
to discuss this topic with their counterparts in those countries
which have been accused, by the global community, of genocide.
Blocher’s trip to Turkey is a case in point. He believes that his
having been required to bring up the topic of the Ottoman Empire’s
Armenian genocide with his Turkish colleagues will have created
unnecessary friction during his meetings in the Eurasian nation.
However, the minister’s failure to guarantee that two Kurdish
activists, held in Switzerland would be extradited to Turkey has also
put a damper on Swiss-Turkish relations, in recent years.
Holocaust denial
The minister is apparently very much aware that a change in the law
will only entice Holocaust deniers to question the existence of gas
chambers as well. “I do not want that an opinion cannot be uttered
only because someone will be offended by it,” the minister said.
According to the minister, the definition of genocide needs to be
decided by historians. “A debate on the subject, however, will have
no basis if diverse opinions are banned,” he said.
According to NZZ, the minister made this very point to his Turkish
colleague, Justice Minister Cemil Cicek. In response, Cicek told
Blocher that Turkey would allow an international historian commission
to research the topic of the Armenian genocide and Kurdish matters.
The Turkish government had already announced its intention to form
a commission in the past. However, no commission has been set up,
to-date. Armenia and Turkey do not hold diplomatic relations. The
Armenians fear that a Turkish commission would be mostly composed of
revisionist minded historians, NZZ writes.
Although several of Blocher’s meetings were strained by the talk of
the Armenian genocide, the minister does believe that his meetings
have “created a giant step towards an improvement” in Switzerland’s
diplomatic relationship to Turkey.
The reason for the two nations’ extremely strained relationship is
Switzerland’s blocking of a Turkish request for the extradition of two
activists of the banned Kurdish Communist Party. The Kurds (Turkish
citizens) are protected under Swiss law because their extradition to
Turkey, which has historically curbed Kurdish freedom of expression,
is contradictory to Swiss law – something that Blocher would like to
see changed.
During his trip to Ankara, Blocher did say that he would make
every effort to have the Swiss legal code changed in order to make
an extradition easier. In other words, he hopes that the Turkish
government would eventually follow suit and allow the Kurdish political
opposition the opportunity to speak its mind, publicly.
However, the extradition will certainly not happen anytime
soon – because not only would Swiss codes need to be changed,
via parliamentary propositions and a general referendum. However,
Turkish laws would also need to be amended.
Most political parties have shown their dismay at Blocher’s proposal
– in particular because the Swiss law only went into effect in 1994
after years of debate and compromise.
The Swiss Ombudsman against Racism, Georg Kreis, told NZZ that
Blocher’s statements would make everyone believe that the law
places sole attention on the Armenian genocide. Kreis went further
to criticise Blocher’s promise to his Turkish colleagues in regards
to the Kurdish Communist Party.
Blocher’s visited Turkey in order to commemorate the 80th anniversary
of the Eurasian country’s civil code which was modelled after that
of Switzerland.

ERDOGAN RECEIVES PES MEMBERS
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
ANKARA – Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan received higher
consultative group of the Party of European Socialists (PES) in Ankara
on Monday.
The meeting between Erdogan and the PES group co-chairmen –Finnish
Parliament Speaker Paavo Lipponen and Greek main opposition PASOK
leader George Papandreou– lasted for more than one hour in the Prime
Ministry building.
After the meeting, Papandreou told reporters that they had a positive
meeting with Erdogan, stating that they discussed freedom of thought,
religious minorities and Cyprus issue in the meeting.
Sources said that Lipponen criticized the French bill (aims to
criminalize denial of so-called Armenian genocide) in the meeting,
noting that he did not approve the bill. Lipponen stressed that
they would work for Turkish-EU relations not to be affected by the
mentioned bill whether or not French parliament enacted it.
On the other hand, PES group headed by Lipponen attended a dinner
hosted by Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.
The PES delegation is expected to leave Turkey tomorrow.

BARROSO’S MESSAGE TO FRANCE
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
BRUSSELS – European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has
indicated that there must not be new criteria and conditions for
Turkey, referring to discussions on so-called Armenian genocide
in France.
At a news conference in Brussels, Barroso noted that Turkish
authorities should respect Ankara Protocol, stating that the pace of
reforms on public freedoms was not satisfactory.
On the other hand, EU commissioner for enlargement Olli Rehn criticised
the bill on so-called Armenian genocide in French Parliament and
pointed out to the possible harm that will be caused by steps taken
to that end.
Expressing his views to the press, Rehn said that while the draft in
question was French parliament’s problem, it might however would lead
to serious problems in EU-Turkey relations.
Rehn said he is worried about the possibility of adoption of the
draft legislation punishing those who didn’t acknowledge the so called
Armenian genocide, and said such a development would harm the dialogue
between Turkey and EU.

TURKISH ASSOCIATIONS IN FRANCE REACTS TO BILL ON SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
PARIS – Turkish associations in France have criticized a French bill
which aims to criminalize denial of so-called Armenian genocide on
the grounds that “it is against freedom of expression” and “it will
harm friendship between Turks and Armenians living in France.”
Releasing a statement, the Union of Associations of Citizens of
Turkish origin (RACORT) said that the mentioned bill would deepen
the bluff between French citizens of Turkish and Armenian origin.
Recalling that Turkish and Armenian intellectuals started to discuss
tragic incidents that had taken place in the past thanks to the
process of democratization in Turkey, it stated that however a part
of French politicians approached the matter “in a demagogical and
self-seeking way”.
On the other hand, COJEP –a Turkish nongovernmental organization
based in Strasbourg– issued a written statement noting that the bill
was an offensive one for Turkish people living in France.
It stressed, “this bill will remove the ground for discussions aiming
to enlighten the facts. Once again we are facing a bill which will
end dialogues and restrict freedoms.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ALGERIAN GENOCIDE MONUMENT IN ANKARA
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
ANKARA – Members of (Turkish capital) Ankara Municipality Assembly
submitted a resolution in regard to construction of a monument
representing French genocide in Algeria to Turkish Parliament on
Monday.
Municipality members prepared a resolution regarding construction of
the monument in Paris Street in Ankara.
The resolution is expected to be discussed in the parliament after
the voting on the French bill which criminalize denial of so-called
Armenian genocide in France on October 12th.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS MEETING
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
ANKARA – “We expect the EU to take action against the French bill
aiming to criminalize denial of so-called Armenian genocide,” Turkish
Justice Minister and Government Spokesman Cemil Cicek said on Monday.
Replying to questions after the meeting of Council of Ministers, Cicek
indicated that while the EU demanded that there should be improvement
in freedom of expression in Turkey, there have been efforts in France
which restricted this freedom.
Stating that Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul briefed ministers about
the bill in the cabinet meeting, Cicek noted, “we have been holding
talks with our interlocutors in regard to the matter. This situation
(in France) conflicts with basic values of the EU.”
“We keep conducting our initiatives. We hope that steps will be taken
against it (the bill), otherwise it will harm basic values (of the EU)
as well as Turkish-French relations,” he stressed.
Replying to a question that Turkey might take up a bill which says
that France committed genocide in Algeria, Cicek said, “Turkish
people have some expectations from the government, parliament and
authorities. We are working to prevent approval of this bill. Turkey
cannot remain silent regarding the matter.”
Asked what sort of measures Turkey would take, if the bill was
approved, Cicek said, “Turkey has been working regarding every kind
of possibility. Everyone should exert efforts on this matter. The
attitude that France has assumed is wrong.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LETTER FROM YOK PRESIDENT TEZIC TO CHIRAC
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
ANKARA – “Can it be stated that the resolution making denial of the
so-called Armenian genocide a crime in France, does not contradict
freedom of expression,” Supreme Board of Education (YOK) President
Prof. Erdogan Tezic asked in a letter he sent to French President
Jacques Chirac.
In the letter Tezic urged President Chirac not to approve the
resolution in question.
“French National Assembly is getting prepared to adopt a resolution
making denial of the so-called Armenian genocide a crime. To this end,
I want to share my concerns with you,” Prof. Tezic noted.
“Can it be said that big states did not provoke and support the
Armenian gangs in the Ottoman Empire during World War I? And they do
not have any responsibility on these sufferings?” Tezic underlined.
“I believe that you will not consent to the adoption of such a
resolution which will pave the way of hatred among young generations
as a veteran statesman of a country like France which has a rich
cultural heritage,” he indicated.

BOYCOTT OF FRENCH PRODUCTS
Turkish Press
Oct 23 2006
KONYA – “If the resolution submitted to French parliament to make all
denials of so-called Armenian genocide a crime is approved, we will
start to boycott one French product every week,” said Bulent Deniz,
Chairman of the Turkish Consumers Union, on Monday.
In a written press release, Deniz reminded that the French Parliament
will vote on a draft law on Thursday, October 12th, that makes all
denial of so-called Armenian genocide a crime.
“The vote on so-called Armenian genocide will show how much respect
the French attach to freedom of thought and expression,” told Deniz.
Deniz stressed that if the resolution is accepted by the French
parliament, the Turkish Consumers Union will boycott one French product
every week beginning on October 12th. “Our boycott will continue until
the law on so-called Armenian genocide will get annulled,” noted Deniz.
Bulent Deniz added that Turkey must place a ban on all French firms
so that they can not participate in tenders organized by Turkish firms.

CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION
By Paul Sussman for CNN
CNN International
Oct 23 2006
(CNN) — This year, 2006, marks two significant anniversaries in the
history of the former Soviet Union, anniversaries that in a sense
bookend the disintegration of the once-formidable communist superpower.
Fifty years ago today, on Monday, October 23 1956, the people of
Hungary revolted against Soviet rule, demanding political freedom
and an end to the brand of repressive authoritarian communism that
had been imposed on their country by Moscow.
The uprising marked one of the first, and certainly the most
symbolically important attempts by a nation within the Soviet sphere
of influence to break free of that influence and go its own way.
Although it was short-lived and ended in failure and bloodshed —
the suppression of the revolt saw the worst violence in Europe since
World War II — it can nonetheless be viewed as an early faltering
step on a road that, three decades later, was to culminate in the
domino-like tumble of the Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact regimes and
subsequent dissolution of the USSR itself (a dissolution that was
officially rubber stamped by the Belavezha Accords of December 8, 1991,
the fifteenth anniversary of which will also be celebrated this year.)
In terms of anniversaries 2006 thus recalls both one of the first great
internal challenges to Soviet hegemony, and the final collapse of that
hegemony. On which basis it would seem like an appropriate time to
ask how those countries that once made up the Soviet world have fared
in the post-Soviet era, and whether, over the past decade and a half,
independence from Moscow has proved to be a blessing or a curse.
Success in the west As well as Russia, the overall controlling nation,
the Soviet Union consisted of 14 other states, generally divided into
four geographical groupings: The Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania);
Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan); the Transcaucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia); and
Eastern Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine.)
Ostensibly independent, but in fact as tightly controlled by Moscow as
the member-nations of the USSR itself, were the satellite states of the
Warsaw Pact: Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, The German Democratic Republic,
Hungary, Poland and Romania (Albania formerly left the pact in 1968.)
Twenty-one nations, therefore, made up the Soviet world prior to its
fragmentation in 1989-91.
Of those it is the states at the western end of the former Soviet
sphere of influence that have, by and large, adapted best to the
new world order, and reaped the greatest benefits from the fall
of communism.
Independence has brought these nations both newfound economic
prosperity and political stability, as well as social freedoms that
were unthinkable during the Soviet era.
The degree of change and improvement clearly varies from state to
state, with countries such as Bulgaria and Romania still lagging
some way behind more successful neighbors (or near neighbors) such
as Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.
Even for ostensibly “successful” former communist states such as
Hungary and Poland the transition from totalitarian rule to open
democracy and a free market economy has not been an easy one.
Recent demonstrations against Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc
Gyurcsany, for example — sparked by the latter’s admission that
he lied about the state of the country’s economy in order to win a
second term in office — sparked Hungary’s worst violence since 1956.
The former East Germany, likewise, even 15 years after re-unification,
remains relatively economically impoverished compared to its more
prosperous western twin.
If the road has been, and remains, a rocky one, however, it is
indisputable that those countries in the west have made far more
progress since the end of communism than their eastern former comrades.
“There are vast differences between the western former Soviet Bloc
countries and the eastern ones in terms of economic development,
democratization and the degree to which a civil society exists,”
says Margot Light, Professor Emeritus in International Relations at
the London School of Economics.
“The success stories speak for themselves because they are now members
of the European Union: The three Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary,
the Czech republic, Slovakia and Slovenia.
“As members of the EU they have had to fulfil very strident political
as well as economic criteria, and that is an indicator of the advances
they have made.
“Even Romania and Bulgaria can be considered relatively successful
since they are due to accede to the EU next year.
“All these countries are very much looking to the west now. They see
themselves as European.”
Many commentators, including Light, believe that the break-up of
the Soviet Union, far from heralding the end of east-west divide,
has simply moved that divide further to the east.
“What essentially separates east from west now is the Schengen
Agreement,” she explains.
“By dissolving borders within the EU and allowing free movement of
people, labor, goods and money, Schengen binds the EU countries very
tightly together while excluding those on the Eastern side of the
divide and making it far harder for their populations to travel or
work in Europe.”
Churchill’s “iron curtain” would thus seem to have been replaced by
a “paper curtain”, with money, and trade and diplomatic agreements,
rather than military might, now acting as the great divider.
East of the paper curtain And what of those on the other side of
this curtain?
Here the picture is a far less happy one. Some countries, such as
the Ukraine, have made a degree of progress towards democracy and
economic stability, although it is faltering progress at best.
“Ukraine certainly has European aspirations,” says Margot Light. “Its
economy was doing reasonably until a couple of years ago, and it
had a ‘color’ revolution that removed its old leaders and ushered in
democratic elections.
“It has recently returned to a state of political strife, however,
and is suffering such turmoil that very little progress is being made.”
Elsewhere things seem even bleaker.
Armenia, Georgia, Tajikistan and Moldova have all been weakened by
internal and inter-state conflict, with Moldova now effectively split
into two countries along the Nistru River; Armenia and Azerbaijan in
a state of damaging ethnic confrontation over the Nogorno-Karabakh
region; and Georgia hamstrung by two violent secessionist conflicts
(involving the northern regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.)
Resource-rich states such as the ‘Stans’ — Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan — are doing relatively well financially on
account of their vast oil and gas reserves, which are attracting
significant outside investment.
Against this, however, must be set an alarming lack of political
reform.
“You have to separate out progress on the economic front and progress
on the political front,” says Light.
“Economically the ‘Stans’ are doing extremely well right at the moment
because of their oil and gas. Politically, however, they have reverted
to an almost feudal type of rule.
“Turkmenistan is by far the worst, with Uzbekistan not far behind.
These countries are even less democratic now than they were under
Soviet rule. The exception is Kyrgyzstan which is slightly better
than the others although even that still has a very long way to go.”
The situation is similar in Belarus, where relative economic stability
has to be weighed against a distinct lack of political freedom and
transparency (President Alexander Lukashenko openly acknowledges that
his ruling style is “authoritarian.”)
“Belarus still has a controlled, centralized economy,” explains
Light. “Which according to the World Bank doesn’t actually perform
too badly.
“Politically, however, the country is still very repressive.”
Russia — both strong and weak And what of Russia itself, the master
of the former Soviet Empire?
“Russia, of all the non-EU countries of the former Soviet Union,
has done by far the best,” says Light. “Or at least it has
economically-speaking.
“It’s economy has benefited hugely from oil and gas revenues, and it
is gradually re-establishing its sphere of influence in Caucasus and
Central Asia, where it has a lot of ‘soft’ power on account of its
economic influence.”
Just as the western former Soviet States have gravitated towards the
European grouping, there appears to be a similar drawing together of
the southern and eastern states of the former USSR, this time with
Russia as the hub.
According to Dr. Yuri Federov, an associate fellow at the London-based
Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), Russia is
once again dreaming of empire.
“The dominant trend in Russian political thinking at the moment is
the restoration of its former status,” he says.
At the same time, however, there appear to be inherent weaknesses in
Russia’s renewed economic, and by extension political bullishness.
“Russia is both strong and weak economically,” says Federov. “Its
economic strength critically depends on oil and gas earnings. It is
thus far more dependent on world markets than it was in the days
of the former Soviet Union, and could suffer from a drop in the
international energy market.
“Also, Russia has not been able to create or develop solid sources
of economic growth beside oil and gas exports.
“For instance, it still very much depends on the West for “high”
technologies such as information, communication and bio technologies.
It is only strong so long as oil and gas remain strong.”
Federov also points out that politically Russia remains an
authoritarian regime, and one in which many of the democratic gains
of the Yeltsin years are now being rolled back.
“Politically there has been a backward development in the last few
years after the very chaotic and premature democracy of the Yeltsin
days.
“We now have a soft authoritarian regime in which 99 percent of the
mass media is under governmental control, bureaucracy is omnipotent
and the State is all important.”
Brave new world?
Fifty years after the Hungarian revolution, and 15 after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the overall picture thus remains one
of east-west division, a separation that is today defined less by
military confrontation than by economics and political systems.
And while the Soviet straightjacket has been removed, all the
states that once formed the Soviet world have gravitated not towards
individuality, but rather into new political and economic groupings,
whether it be the EU in the west, or one of the various alliances
that have sprung up in the east and south of the former USSR:
The Commonwealth of Independent States, the Shanghai Co-Operation
Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
In many ways, it seems, the break-up of the Soviet Union has ushered
in not so much a brave new world as a new and more complex variation
on an old theme.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FRENCH AMBASSADOR’S FAREWELL VISIT TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Public Radio, Armenia
Oct 23 2006
October 23, 2006 Chairman of RA National Assembly Tigran Torosyan
received the Ambassador of France Henry Cuny on the occasion of
completion of the latter’s mission in Armenia.
Thanking for the productive cooperation during the five years of
his tenure in office Mr. Cuny said these have been interesting and
important. The Ambassador emphasized the importance of development of
Francophone in Armenia, since pan-European values lie in the basis
of it, and with the development of Francophonic values the way to
European integration becomes shorter.
During the meeting the parties referred to the bill recently
adopted in the French Parliament. At the request of the Ambassador,
NA Chairman presented his impressions form the adoption of the bill
and the reactions that followed. Citing the words once uttered by the
President of France Jacques Chirac – “they lost the best opportunity
to keep silent” – Mr. Torosyan characterized the behavior of those
organizations, which have condemned the decision of the French
National Assembly.